fud: This is a false premise by you. The patents provide for a method that samples the carrier, followed by integration of the energy in the samples and generation of the baseband signal.
I've published the transcript for you.
Prucnal disagreed with Neal - said the carrier's energy was still in the sample entering the caps, and the baseband signal then generated from the integrated energy in the caps.
That was evidence the jury could have accepted even if Qualcomm had put on a witness.
kindly point to the precise evidence Judge Dalton has at his disposal that energy integration is PART of the method by which the accused products down-convert from carrier signal to baseband signal.
States, how do you know no one is using d2p? D2D mega growth has been happening since 2006 and you didn't know about that, did you?
You should be careful about insulting any group with representation in our prisons, given your legal exposure based on this "research payment for stock message board manipulation" scam ... has the US attorney contact you yet?
sounds like in addtion to being a paid Qualcomm Hack, you are also a racist, SLputa
Sorry, I know dis here stuff 'n uins don't.
In the last two quarters, Qualcomm has written off $185 million for liability to PV on d2d chips in almost one billion Qualcomm parts ... so "sold but not collected" sounds like a characterization Qualcomm would have to agree with, SLyputa.
Surely you know Dalton understands that out of context sound bites from a cross of well established direct and redirect testimony are no basis for JMOL or appeal.
Surely you know that Dalton understands that Qualcomm's invalidity case was impossibly and absurdly truncated to anticipation-only, and that "obviousness" was not even presented.
You both gave up months ago arguing that the Markman could have any impact, when I pointed out that infringed claim 202 of 551 contained Qualcomm's preferred (but rejected) definition, anyway.
That leaves only one possibility: Whether realistic, or not, you are here to manipulate this stock. Since PV is not going to run out of money before the Qualcomm case ends, can you explain, or can anyone explain, why SLyputa and Fud are still trying to manipulate this stock here?
Actually, I think 342 covers infringement from application on October 24, 2004 and lasts 20-years; so I was wrong too; expires more like 10 1/2 years from now.
But you do KNOW that the jury found infringement of every asserted claim for every accused part, right?
QCOM was apparently able to ship product in 2006 which may/maynot (don't know) have used PRKR technology embodied in patents granted years after Q began design and shipment of those products.
States: That PV only need to prove knowledge (or willful blindness) as to one (or more) patents is strictly an inducement consideration - already decided and not seriously challenged on JMOL - that has nothing to do with ongoing royalties for the jury's verdict until February 2029 (if infringement of 342 continues).
In other words, once inducement was proven, any PV patent, whether or not previously known to Qualcomm, was eligible for a finding of infringement.
patent 342, found valid and infringed, is good for over 15 more years ... so does your post qualify as **deceit** statesrip?
Wrong again SLyputa: A continuous Gilbert double balanced mixer is what most would consider "conventional" ... Here's from the Budwin day four redirect:
Budwin: Can you explain whether the accused products have a double balanced mixer?
Prucnal: The accused have what **they call** a double balanced mixer, yes.
Budwin: Can you explain to the jury how a double balanced mixer within the accused products can infringe the asserted claims?
Prucnal: Well, I've shown infringement for one switch. Just one is enough. And if there are two such switches and it still infringes -- because each one of them infringes. And if there are four, the same thing is true.
SLyputa Lies Again:
If Qualcomm's quadrature phase sampling, dual-balanced mixer operates as a conventional such mixer, then it clearly predates PRKR's patents. The circuit schematic, as put into evidence by both Qualcomm and Parkervision (reverse-engineered circuit analysis report commissioned by PV) was admitted by Prucnal and Mr. F.D. Sorrells to be conventional.
Because Neal and Dalton demanded Prucnal give only yes/no or I can't answer responses on cross. In fact, Dalton reminded Prucnal of this and that Budwin would allow him to elaborate on redirect, which he didn't even have to do, because Prucnal eventually got in the rebuttal on Neal's cross, as I already published here.
Why didn't Prucnal simply reply? -
"No - the baseband SIGNAL is not fully down-converted by the mixer."
SLyputa: "PV's expert, Prucnal, testified that the circuit did indeed **look like** a conventional mixer." RIGHT, AND ALSO THAT IT DIDN'T FUNCTION AS A CONTINUOUS MIXER, BUT, RATHER, CREATED DISCRETE TIME SAMPLES.
SLyputa: Of course, QCOM's own expert testified in depth on the topic [double balanced mixers]. QUALCOMM'S VALIDITY EXPERT TESTIFIED ABOUT DOUBLE BANANCED MIXER PRIOR ART ... SO WHAT? IF YOU THINK HE TESTIFIED QUALCOMM'S PARTS WERE CONTINUOUS DOUBLE BALANCED MIXERS, TRY PRODUCING THE REFERENCES TO THE TRANSCRIPT (BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST).
Looks like Qualcomm is writing off damages for about 50 million units/ d2d last quarter. Each write off must be probable and possible to estimate. It looks like they are using the jury's royalty rates for now; US sales only for now. So far they've written off $185 million total ... soon we should be seeing this in our growing in an escrow account for PRKR.
Because that was THE ONLY Prucnal testimony about the "baseband signal"; So the better question is why do YOU think (if you do) there was any evidence presented at trial that the "baseband signal" is created by the mixer (switches)?
- I don't understand the basis for your apparent assumption that because the "actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor", the baseband signal on the baseband path cannot also be created BEFORE the capacitor resistor - in the mixer.
fud- What is it you don't understand about Prucnal's statement ["the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor."]?
The Court's claim construction order only defines "baseband signal" (see below from dkt #243). It doesn't define "baseband" or "baseband path" as used by Qualcomm in the schematics Prucnal was testifying about ...
What you keep quoting was Prucnal agreeing that the baseband information is recreated by switches into samples at the output of the mixer and, as Prucnal testified verbatim: "the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor."
Court's Markman Order:
one skilled in the art would recognize that the lower frequency signal in this discussion can be either (1) the baseband signal or (2) an intermediate frequency.
Sure fud, anything to end your fud (hope this helps):
Prucnal: "Crisscrossing itself doesn't create the lower frequency signal. It's one of the patents that leads to
the lower frequency signal."
Neal: Fair enough. But in the Qualcomm circuit, a lower frequency baseband signal has been created. And can you point to the places where the baseband signal is? Basically, I just want you to show what corresponds to what you were pointing to on PX-847.
Prucnal: Sure. So the baseband path is shown here on the top, I believe this is baseband P. And the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor.
Roundermatt, re your -
[ Also, about 10 pages before "[s]o at least in Qualcomm's architecture" Prucnal defines for Neal how he distinguishes the terms "baseband" alone and "baseband path" from "baseband signal" ]
- if you think this alleged distinction between "baseband" and "baseband signal" could be interpreted by a "reasonable mind" as impacting the admission Prucnal made WITHOUT making any attempt whatsoever to minimise the potential for misinterpretation I suggest you now post those definitions.
I personally do not expect you to. If they helped your argument you would already have done so.
fud, as I said, "[s]o at least in Qualcomm's architecture" comes about 70 pages before Prucnal again explains the evidence of integration/generation in the caps ... he's pointing to waveforms and other evidence to make these points.
Also, about 10 pages before "[s]o at least in Qualcomm's architecture" Prucnal defines for Neal how he distinguishes the terms "baseband" alone and "baseband path" from "baseband signal" ...
You keep ignoring all the other evidence I'm pointing you to (and more), and you are also 'reading-in' the word "signal" into Prucnal's answer where it simply doesn't exist and thus changing the meaning of "baseband" (undefined at Markman) as Prucnal explained it to the jury to "baseband signal" which he consistently used as defined in the Markman.